Evaluating K – 8 and 9 – 12 Technology Surveys
Southern Lehigh School District’s Educational Technology Report (2011) repeatedly refers to using survey instruments to collect data. The report states, “We will continue to use electronic surveys to collect data related to technology use and attitudes from all stakeholders” (SLSD, 2011, p. 52). One NET Standard for Teachers is systemic improvement to an organization by effectively using information (ISTE, 2009). Teacher implementation of technology can be assessed by “collecting and analyzing data, interpreting results, and sharing findings to improve staff performance and student learning (ISTE, 2009, p.2).
On March 30, 2012, a number of teachers throughout Southern Lehigh School District (SLSD) participated in a technology survey. The data has been analyzed and some recommendations have been made. Grades K - 8 Survey Results
Out of 148 kindergarten through grade 8 teachers, 101 teachers participated in the technology survey—a 62% response rate. Teachers answered 25 questions on how they and their students use technology to support learning. Some questions required a yes or no response about technology use, but most questions assessed the degree or extent of technology use. Most of the data was organized into tables according to the type of response. In addition, some related responses were grouped together to simplify analysis.
I. Yes / No Reponses of Technology Use
Table1.
Yes / No Reponses of Technology Use
Response
No
Yes
I actively look for new lesson plans that focus on my core content that include the use of technology.
30% (n=30)
70% (n=71)
I use a variety of technology in order to teach and complete other duties.
10% (n=10)
90% (n=91)
I have created and maintain a website to provide STUDENTS a content-rich resource to use from home or school.
27% (n=27)
73% (n=74)
I have created and maintain a website to provide PARENTS information about my classes.
6% (n=6)
94% (n=95)
I use technology to collaborate with other educators to support my own professional growth.
9% (n=9)
91% (n=92)
I have dealt with issues related to cyberbullying in my classroom.
70% (n=71)
30% (n=30)
I have taken college courses related to the integration of technology.
42% (n=42)
58% (n=59)
A. Technology use in core content.
The first yes/no question asked if teachers “actively look for new lesson plans that focus on ... core content that include the use of technology” (Table 1). Seven out of 10 teachers actively search for these types of lessons and 3 out of 10 do not. Analysis: One of the goals of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report is attaining academic proficiency by providing software that is aligned to curriculum (2011, p. 11). One of the 21st Century Skills (P21, 2011) is to design core content lessons lesson plans that include innovations. Although most teachers (70%) actively search for core-content materials that utilizes technology, yet 30% do not. Recommendation: Offer teachers Professional Development (PD) that provides resources for locating technology-rich core lessons. In addition, teachers can collaborate and share their own resources within their grade levels or subject content.
B. Utilize variety of software.
The next question examined if teachers “utilized a variety of technology in order to teach and complete other duties” (Table 1). Nine out of 10 teachers utilize a variety of technology. Analysis: The goal is to gain competency in a variety of technology and integrate it into the curriculum (ALSDE, p. 19). Even though 90% of teachers utilize a variety of technology to teach, yet (as noted in the previous response) only 70% of these same teachers took an active interest in improving core content lessons that utilize technology (Table1). Although technology, for the most part, is being well utilized to teach, it is not always used effectively--to improve core content lessons.
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) has identified seven levels of use that can guide professional development and help with adopting change (Loucks-Horsley, 1996). CBAMs Levels of Use
Level 0, None-use: The educator has no knowledge about or involvement in using technology.
Level 1, Orientation: The educator is exploring and acquiring information about a technology.
Level 2, Preparation: The educator is getting ready to use a technology for the first time.
Level 3, Mechanical Use: The technology is used superficially with little reflection.
Level 4a, Routine: Technology use is mastered but little effort is made to improve its use.
Level 4b, Refinement: The educator varies technology use to increase the benefits.
Level 5, Integration: The educator combines efforts with colleagues to improve benefits.
Level 6, Renewal: The educator re-evaluates the quality of use to increase impact and explores new personal or community goals.
When using CAM’s levels of use to evaluate where teachers are in their use of technology, we can see that 90% of teachers have established routine use of technology (Level 4a) and 70% have refined their use of technology to increase the benefits (Level 4b).(See Table 1). Recommendation: It would be beneficial for students to have 100% of teachers utilizing technology in a variety of ways, but this increase in use should result in an increase in quality lessons as well. Staff training should continue to focus on teachers utilizing varied technology that supports quality lessons.
C. Class Websites for communication and rich content.
The next two questions assess teachers’ creation and use of Websites. Most teachers (94%) create and maintain Websites to inform and communicate with parents about their classes (Table 1). From these same teachers, 73% use their Websites to provide students a content-rich resource to use at school or home (Table 1). Analysis: One of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report goals is for teachers to maintain and increase the use of teacher Web pages to share content-rich resources with students and to communicate with them and their parents (2011, p. 28). It is commendable that a large majority of teachers (95%) communicate with parents using a class Website. Yet, Websites have the potential of being more than a communication tool and become a content-rich resource tool. It appears 95% routinely use Websites to communicate (CBAM’s Level 4a), but 73% are going beyond adequate use and use it to increase the benefits (CBAM’s Level 4b). Recommendation: Offer PD to create and maintain websites that not only effectively communicate with parents but also become a content-rich resource for students at school and home. Teachers who have successfully created content-rich Websites can collaborate with and mentor those who have not.
D. Teacher collaboration.
This question assesses if teachers “use technology to collaborate with other educators to support … professional growth” (Table 1). Nine out of ten teachers indicated they do collaborate. Analysis: One of the goals of the Educational Technology Plan (2011) is teacher collaboration to mentor others in their use of technology and enhance their instructional strategies (SLSD, pp. 8, 28). It is also one of the goals of Partnership for 21st Century Skills and NET Standards for Teachers. According to CBAMs levels of use, it appears most teachers are at level 5 of integration—educators combine efforts with colleagues to improve benefits. Recommendation: Promote teacher collaboration to support professional growth in learning and using new technologies to deliver technology-rich content lessons and content-rich Websites.
E. Cyberbullying.
This question evaluates if teachers have “dealt with issues related to cyberbullying” within their classrooms (Table 1). Of those surveyed, 30% indicated it is a problem. Analysis: No child in public school should be bullied and feel unsafe. These results are consistent with a 2012 Pew Report that indicated that 27% of children from ages 11 – 16 are bullied at least once a month (Lenhart, 2010, slide 13). A goal of the district’s Educational Technology Report is to enhance educational opportunities that include cyber safety (SLSD, 2011, p. 31). Federal laws such as Protecting Children in the 21st Century Actin 2008 endorse Internet Safety in schools. Schools must certify they are educating students “about appropriate online behavior, including interacting with other individuals on social networking websites and in chat rooms, and cyberbullying awareness and response” (FCC, 2011, p. 3). Recommendation: Provide PD that focuses on cyberbullying and digital citizenship. The district can continue to utilize iSAFE, an online cyber-safety education program. Common Sense Media is another quality program.
F. College training in integration.
The last yes / no question assesses if teachers have taken “college courses related to the integration of technology” (Table 1). Fifty-eight percent of those responding indicated that have taken courses on technology integration. Analysis: One of the Educational Technology Report’s goals is to support integration (2011, pp. 5, 52, 53). Although many teachers have voluntarily taken technology integration courses, still 42% have not. As more teachers are trained to integrate technology, its use will increase. Recommendation: Provide PD that includes “current research and best practices in effective models of technology integration” (ALSDE, p. 21). II. The Extent of Technology Use
Table 2.
Extent Use of Technology
Response
Not Up-to-date
Somewhat Up-to-date
Very Up-to-date
I consider myself up-to-date on current technology devices and software.
3% (n=3)
61% (n=62)
36% (n=36)
Response
Less Often
Once Per Month
2-4 times Per Month
Once Per Week
2-5 Times Per Week
I design lesson plans focused on my core content that include the use of technology.
3% (n=3)
2% (n=2)
2% (n=2)
13% (n=13)
80% (n=81)
Response
Never
Annual
Semester
Marking Period
I use technology to collect and/or analyze data in order to make decisions regarding changes I may want to make in my teaching priorities and strategies.
11% (n=11)
5% (n=5)
12% (n=12)
72% (n=73)
Response
Semester
Marking Period
Weekly
Daily
I use email on a _ basis for communicating with parents.
1% (n=1)
11% (n=11)
23% (n=23)
54% (n=66)
Response
Less Often
Weekly
Daily
Students use computers in my classroom on a _ basis.
15% (n=15)
17% (n=17)
68% (n=69)
Response
Never
Sometimes
Regularly
My school administrator(s) models the use of technology by using it for correspondence, communications, presentations, and /or data analysis.
2% (n=2)
20% (n=20)
78% (n=79)
A. Teachers up-to-date on technology.
Teachers were evaluated if they are “up-to-date on current technology devices and software” (Table 2). Of the 101 surveyed, the most frequent answer was somewhat up-to-date at 61%. The remainder responded they were very up-to-date at 36% and not up-to-date for 3%. Analysis: Some goals of SLSD’s Educational Technology Plan are engaging students in 21st century technology skills (2011, p. 2, 4), integrating technology across the curriculum (p. 4), and supporting and improving student achievement (p. 5). This question assesses whether teachers are using high quality and current technology and software. Earlier responses showed 90% of teachers using a variety of software to teach lessons (Table 1), yet 61% is a significant percentage of teachers who acknowledged needing more skills and training to use current technology and software. Recommendation: PD needs to focus on training on up-to-date or current technology and software that is available within the district.
B. Technology use in core content.
This question assessed if teachers design lesson plans that focus on “core content that include the use of technology” (Table 2). Eighty percentindicated they design lessons that focus on core content 2 to 5 times a week, 13% do this once a week, 2 % do this 2 to 4 times a month, 2% do this once a month, and finally 3% never do. Analysis: One of the goals of Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011) is to design core content lessons lesson plans that include innovations. This question is similar to a yes/no question in Table 1 that examined if teachers “actively look for new lesson plans that focus on ... core content that include the use of technology.” Thus, 70% of teachers actively search for core-content lessons that use technology, and 80% of teachers design lesson that focus on core content that use technology 2 –5 times a week. It is not clear why 10% less teachers look for core-content lessons than those who design them. This difference may indicate some ambiguity of understanding on the teachers’ part what looking for and designing core-content lessons entails. Recommendation: PD to train teachers how to search for and design core-content lessons that use technology.
C. Use Technology to collect and analyze data.
This question evaluates if teachers use “technology to collect and/or analyze data in order to make decisions regarding changes … [they] want to make in … teaching priorities and strategies” (Table 2). The data reveals that 72% of teachers collect and analyze data once during a marking period. From the remaining teachers, 12% do so once a semester, 5% annually and 11% never. Analysis: The purpose for teachers collecting and analyzing data is to meet the needs of individual students and improve student achievement (SLSD, 2011, p. 22). When 7 out of 10 teachers seek to improve teaching priorities and strategies per marking period, then 7 out of 10 classes receive those benefits. The 5% of the teachers that evaluate at the end of the year can only use strategies for next year’s students. The 11% teachers who never collect or analyze data cannot make informed decisions about teaching priorities and strategies. Thus, one out of ten classes never benefit from analyzed data. Recommendation: Teachers should utilize PD “opportunities to learn how to analyze data tools including EdInsight, PVAAS, and achievement data” (SLSD, 2011, p. 22). Teachers should collect and evaluate data on a quarterly basis to make changes in teaching priorities and strategies that benefit the needs of students.
D. Emailing.
This question measures how often teachers email to communicate with parents (Table 2). Of the 101 surveyed, 54% communicate daily, 23% communicate weekly, 11% communicate quarterly, and 1% communicates once a semester. Analysis: A goal of district’s Educational Technology Plan is to “enhance effective school/ parent/community interaction and communication” (SLSD, 2011, p. 21).The objective of emailing is to communicate effectively with parents about student progress, needs, and assignments to increase student achievement. A preceding response revealed that the majority (94%) of these same teachers use class Websites to communicate with parents (Table 1). It is unclear whether the 6% who do not use Websites to communicate with parents do so by email. Recommendation: Continue to encourage teacher communications with parents by either Website or email.
E. Students’ use of computers.
This question measures the frequency of students’ use of computers. Teachers indicated that 68% of the students use computers on a daily basis, 17% use them weekly, and remaining 15% use them less often (Table 2). Analysis: A goal of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report is to provide optimal access to technology tools to support student learning (2011 p. 10). Even though approximately two-thirds of the students use computers every day, yet about a third of them use computers weekly or less often. This shows that some students do not have equal access to technology to support academic achievement. A lack of equal access may be attributed to not having a one-to-one environment. With a 2:1 ratio, all students have the potential to use computers at least 2 to 3 times a week, but do not. So, there might to other reasons. A lack of use may stem from 61% teachers acknowledging that they only felt somewhat up-to-date with technology use and therefore may avoid having their students use it if it involves unfamiliar technology. Perhaps there are scheduling conflicts as well. Recommendation: Teachers should utilize PD to increase skill and ease in technology use. Teachers should be encouraged to provide equal opportunities for all students to use technology as they learn core content. In addition, schedule computer use to ensure equal use. Continue to bring the district closer to a 1:1 ratio.
F. Administrators model technology use.
Teachers were asked if school administrators model the use of technology by using it for correspondence, communications, presentations, and /or data analysis (Table 2). From those surveyed, 78% regularly modeled using technology for administrative responsibilities, 20% sometime modeled these skills, and 2% reported they never modeled these skills. Analysis: A goal of the Educational Technology Plan is that administrators “model the use of technology by using it for correspondence, communications, presentations, and /or data analysis” (SLSD, 2011, p. 2). In addition, one of ISTE’s NET Standards for Administrators is to model and promoting frequent and effective technology use. The second NET Standard states that Administrators will promote a digital-age learning culture by modeling and promoting “frequent and effective use of technology” (ISTE, 2009b, p. 1). A majority (78%) of teachers acknowledged that administrators regularly modeled the use of technology. Most of the remaining administrators sometimes (20%) model these skills. Recommendation: The Educational Technology Report states the district will “develop a differentiated plan for all … administrators to develop a personal professional growth plan to demonstrate proficiency in the NET Standards” (SLSD, 2011, p. 18). It is important for administrators to model technology to teachers and students.
G. Technology disbursement/sharing.
Figure1. Indicates how teachers feel about the availability of mobile computer cart
This question measured teachers’ impressions about disbursement/sharing of technology. Although 43% of the teachers had little trouble gaining access to carts for their students, yet 45% indicated there were some scheduling issues (Figure 1). Thirteen percent found it difficult to access them. Analysis: There appear to be issues in equal access to technology use since (13%) confirmed difficultly signing out technology and 45% had some difficulty. When these responses are compared to earlier responses that indicated approximately two thirds (68%) of students use computers on a daily basis, but one third used computers weekly (17%) or less (15%) (See Table 2). Thus, this lower number of use could be attributed to difficulty of access. Recommendation: Make a schedule to ensure equal use of computers. As the district continues to move toward a 1:1 environment to optimize access to technology (SLSD, 2011, p.10), computer sharing and scheduling will be less of an issue.
Table 3.
Extent of Technology Use
My students participated in lessons where they use the following technology during the first half of this school year:
Never
Marking Period
Weekly
2-4 Times Per week
Daily
Software for Remediation
25% (n=25)
13% (n=13)
16% (n=16)
25% (n=26)
21% (n=21)
Software for enhancement
18% (n=18)
17% (n=17)
23% (n=23)
27% (n=28)
15% (n=15)
Software for practice/reinforcement
13% (n=13)
14% (n=14)
21% (n=21)
26% (n=27)
26% (n=26)
Internet or software for research
15% (n=15)
42% (n=43)
22% (n=22)
14% (n=14)
7% (n=7)
Application software for preparing projects or assignments to hand in or present (e.g. Word, PowerPoint, Web page, Excel, Graphing Software, etc.)
29% (n=29)
39% (n=40)
16% (n=16)
12% (n=12)
4% (n=4)
Software, graphing calculators, or iPads/iPods are used to collect and analyze data
57% (n=58)
26% (n=26)
9 % (n=9)
5% (n=5)
3% (n=3)
Devices to prepare or present assignments (e.g. iPads/iPods, laptops, digital cameras, scanners, Interactive Whiteboards, Digital Projectors, document cameras, etc.)
27% (n=27)
35% (n=36)
13% (n=13)
13% (n=13)
12 % (n=12)
Software/Internet is used for problem solving and decision-making (e.g. data analysis, concept mapping, etc.)
33% (n=33)
37% (n=38)
17 % (n=17)
7% (n=7)
6% (n=6)
Use email, message boards, web meetings, or other forms of digital communication / collaboration with other students, experts, professionals
43% (n=44)
21% (n=21)
13% (n=13)
10% (n=10)
13% (n=13)
Use digital video editing to create video presentations
63% (n=64)
28% (n=28)
4% (n=4)
4% (n=4)
1% (n=1)
Use distance learning (video conferencing technology.)
86% (n=87)
14% (n=14)
Software for Remediation.
Students’ use of remedial software ranged from 21% using it daily, to 25% using it 2-4 times per week, to 16% using it weekly, to 13% using it once a marking period, and to 25% never using it (Table 3). Although this amounts to 63% using it on a weekly basis, yet students’ use differed greatly ranging from daily (21%) to never (25%). Analysis: The use of remedial software varies greatly and depends upon the need. Perhaps teachers are not analyzing students’ needs and providing remedial help to increase student achievement. An earlier question assessed if teachers analyzed data to make decisions about teaching strategies (Table 2). Teacher analysis of data to improve strategies ranged from 72% a marking period, to 12% a semester, to 5% annually, and to 11% never. A relationship appears to emerge since 25% of teachers never use remedial software and 28% analyze data less often than a marking period. Recommendation: It is recommended that teachers collect and analyze data each marking period. This will help them assess student performance and then better utilize remediation software. If teachers do not know how to use software for remediation they should utilize PD to learn how to use it.
Software for enhancement.
Students’ use of software for enhancement ranged from 15% using it daily, to 27% using it 2-4 times per week, to 23% using it weekly, to 17% using it once a marking period, to 18% never using it (Table 3). Thus, 65% used software for enhancement weekly, but the remaining 35% students used it rarely or never. Analysis: The use of software for enhancement depends upon the need. When a third of the students rarely or never use it, it appears to be underutilized. Recommendation: It is recommended that all teachers use software for enhancement to enrich their lessons. If teachers do not know how to use software for enhancement they should utilize PD to learn how to use it. Software for practice/reinforcement.
Students’ use of practice and reinforcement software ranged from 26% using it daily, to 26% using it 2-4 times per week, to 21% using it weekly, to14% using it once a marking period, to 13% never using it (Table 3). This amounts to 73% using it weekly. Analysis: The use of practice and reinforcement software depends upon the need. However, when 27% of the students rarely or never use it, it appears to be underutilized, and they will not benefit from its use. A previous question assessed if teachers analyzed data to make decisions about teaching strategies. Teacher analysis of data ranged from 72% a marking period, to 12% a semester, to 5% annually, and to 11% never analyzing data to improve strategies (Table 2). There appears to be a relationship between student use of practice and reinforcement software and teacher analysis of data—27% of students rarely or never used practice/reinforcement softwareand 28% of teachers infrequently or never analyzed data. Recommendation: Teachers collect and analyze data about student performance, and then, utilize software for practice and reinforcement to support student achievement. If teachers do not know how to use software for practice and reinforcement they should utilize PD to learn how to use it. Internet and software for research.
Students’ use of Internet and software for research ranged from 15% using it daily, to 42% using it 2-4 times per week, to 22% using it weekly, to 14% using it once a marking period, to 7% never using it (Table 3). This amounts to 79% of students using it weekly. Analysis: The goal for using Internet and software for research is to increase 21st Century Skills, especially in Information Literacy to access, evaluate, use, and manage information (P21, 2011). Part D of NCLBAct (Enhancing Education Through Technology Act of 2001), gives this objective: “To assist every student in crossing the digital divide by ensuring that every student is technologically literate by the time the student finishes the eighth grade, regardless of the student's race, ethnicity, gender, family income, geographic location, or disability” (ED.Gov, 2004, sec. 2402 b,1,A). As students begin to construct their own knowledge, Internet use and research software becomes much more important. It is also a way to connect with, understand, and solve real world problems. When 20% of students rarely or never use the Internet and software for research then they are not being taught the following Information Literacy skills: accessing, evaluating, using, and managing information. Recommendation: It is recommended that teachers increase student use of Internet and software for research so students gain experience in Information Literacy and other 21st Century Skills. If teachers do not know how to use Internet and software for research they should utilize PD to learn how to use it.
Application software for projects or assignments.
Students’ use of application software for projects or assignments(i.e. Word, PowerPoint, Web page, Excel, Graphing Software, etc.) ranged from 4% using it daily, to 12% using it 2-4 times per week, to 16% using it weekly, to 39% using it once a marking period, to 29% never using it (Table 3). This amounts to 32% of students using application software on a weekly basis. Analysis: The goal for using application software is to support the technology needs of students by providing optimal access to technology (SLSD, 2011, p. 10) and fulfill the objectives of NCLB. It is significant that that 39% use application software once per marking period and the other 29% never use it at all—that is nearly 70% of K – 9 students. Even though SLSD schools have a 2:1 student to computer ratio, the level of use indicates that application software is greatly under-utilized. Recommendation: It is recommended that teachers teach and increase student use of application software and other 21st Century Skills. If some of these teachers are not proficient in application software and therefore are reluctant to use them with their students, then training to use them is essential. Software and graphing calculators to collect and analyze data.
Students’ use of software and graphing calculators to collect and analyze data ranged from 3% using it daily, to 5% using it 2 – 4 time per week, to 9% using it once a week, to 26% using it once per marking period, to 57% never using it (Table 3). This amounts to 17% of students using it weekly. Analysis: The goal for using software and graphing calculators to collect and analyze data is to support specific technology needs of the students. Another goal is for students to increase in 21st Century Skills such as productivity and accountability. When data shows that more than half--57%--never use it at all, it is either underutilized or not needed by most students. Software and graphing calculators’ use may be limited to certain subjects. Recommendation: It is recommended for teachers to increase student use of software and graphing calculators to collect and analyze data software in classes that require it. If teachers do not know how to use it, PD should provide training.
Devices to prepare assignments.
Students’ use of devices to prepare or present assignments (i.e. iPads/iPods, laptops, digital cameras, scanners, Interactive Whiteboards, Digital Projectors, document cameras, etc.)ranged from 12% using it daily, to 13% using it 2 – 4 time per week, to 13% using it once a week, to 35% using it once per marking period, to 27 % never using it (Table 3). This totals to 38% of students using devices weekly. Analysis: The goal for using devices is to provide optimal access to technology tools to support student learning (SLSD, 2011 p. 10) and fulfill the objectives of NCLB. Even though SLSD schools have a 2:1 student to computer ratio as well as supportive technology, it is significant that 62% of students rarely or never use these tools for assignment preparation or presentation. This indicates that available devices are under-utilized. Recommendation: It is recommended that teachers optimize use of iPads/iPods, laptops, digital cameras, scanners, interactive whiteboards and digital projectors, and document cameras to provide a technology-rich environment and increase student productivity, accountability, and other 21st Century Skills. If teacher do not know how to use these devices to prepare and present assignments PD training should be utilized. Perhaps there needs to be further investigation as to why there is such a low level of use.
Software and Internet used to problem solve and make decisions.
Students’ use of software and the Internet for problem solving and decision-making (i.e., data analysis, concept mapping, etc.) ranged from 6% using it daily, to 7% using it 2 – 4 time per week, to 17% using it once a week, to 37% using it once per marking period (Table 3). This amounts to 30 % of students using software and the Internet to problem solve and make decisions on a basis weekly. Analysis: The goal for using software and the Internet to problem solve and make decisions is to support the technology needs of the students and fulfill the objectives of 21st Century Skills. It is significant that only 37% of students use software and the Internet to problem solve and make decisions only once a marking period and the other 33% never use it at all. Thus, when 70% of students rarely or never use software and the Internet to problem solve and make decisions, then it needs to be evaluated as to why. Recommendation: It is recommended that teachers increase their students’ use of software and Internet to think critically, problem solve, make decisions, and use other 21st Century Skills. If teacher do not know how to teach 21st Century Skills like problem solving and decision-making, PD training should be utilized if needed.
Use a variety of digital communication/collaboration with others.
Students’ use of email, message boards, web meetings, or other forms digital communication and collaboration with other students, experts, professionals ranged from 13% using it daily, to 10% using it 2 – 4 time per week, to 13% using it once a week, to 21% using it once per marking period, to 43 % never using it (Table 3). This amounts to 36 % weekly communicating or collaborating with other students and experts. Analysis: The goal for communicating and collaborating with others is to support the technology needs of the students and fulfill the objectives of 21st Century skill of communicating clearly and collaborating with others. It is significant that 21% communicate or collaborate with others only once a marking period and the other 43% never do so all. When 64% of students rarely or never use software and the Internet to problem solve and make decisions, then it needs to be evaluated as to why. Recommendation: It is recommended that teachers increase the use of communicating clearly, collaborating with others, and other 21st Century Skills. If teacher do not know how to use these skills, PD training should be utilized.
Use digital video editing to create video presentations.
Students’ use of digital video editing to create video presentations ranged from 1% using it daily, to 4% using it 2 – 4 time per week, to 4% using it once a week, to 28% using it once per marking period, to 63 % never using it (Table 3). This amounts to 9 % of students weekly editing to create video presentations. Analysis: The goal for learning to digital video editing to create video presentations is to teach the use of technology tools and support the technology needs of the students. It also fulfills the objectives of 21st Century skill of thinking and working creatively either dependently or in collaboration with others. Another important 21st Century Skill is Media Literacy, the ability to analyze and create media products. It is significant that 28% digital video edit to create video presentations only once per marking period and the other 63% never do so all. When 91% of students rarely or never use digital video editing to create video presentations, then it needs to be evaluated as to why. Recommendation: It is recommended that teachers increase students’ skills in Media Literacy, communicating clearly, collaborating with others, and other 21st Century Skills. If teacher do not know how to use video editing software, PD training should be utilized.
Distance learning.
Figure 2. The bar graph shows the extent that video conferencing is used and how.
Teachers’ use of distance learning (video conferencing technology) ranged from 14% using it once per marking period and 86 % never using it (Figure 2). Analysis: The district’s Educational Technology Report (2011) supports the use video conferencing to motivate students in the area of multimedia development (p. 6), to increase global connections (p. 14), and use 21 century skills to “boost student creativity and innovation and enhance critical thinking, problem solving and decision making” (p. 17). Video conferencing was first introduced in 2009 (SLSD, 2011, p. 16), but since only 14% utilize it once per marking period then its use is still limited. Recommended: Continue to offer PD to train teachers in the use of video conferencing as well as where this technology can be utilized to support learning in the classrooms.
Summary
The need for technology tools differs greatly depending upon the age, abilities, and needs of K-8 students. Although many teachers and students in K - 8 utilize a variety of technology, yet there is room for improvement in designing new lessons that include the use of technology content-rich teacher Websites, cyber safety, teacher training in using current technology, teacher analysis of data to improve teaching strategies, and student use of computers. In addition, teachers can better utilize software for remediation, enhancement, reinforcement, research, application, and 21st Century Skills. They can teach students to better utilize hardware to prepare and present assignments. There are sufficient resources to ensure weekly access and use of key resources like computers, supportive devices, and educational software. As the district continues to move towards a 1:1 environment for optimal access to technology (SLSD, 2011, p.10), teachers and students will be better able to access and utilize technology.
From the high school, 41 of the 84 teachers responded to a technology survey, which is a 49%response rate. The first eleven survey questions mostly assessed teacher technology use in core content as well as proficiency. The remaining eleven questions focused on 1:1 implementation of computers. These questions help establish a baseline since the high school will be a 1:1 computing environment for the 2012 – 2013 school year.
Table 4.
Yes / No Reponses of Technology Use
Response
No/ Disagree
Yes/ Agree
I actively look for new lesson plans that focus on my core content that include the use of technology.
20% (n=8)
80% (n=33)
I use a variety of technology in order to teach and complete other duties.
7% (n=3)
93% (n=38)
I have created and maintain a website to provide STUDENTS a content-rich resource to use from home or school.
32% (n=13)
68% (n=28)
I have created and maintain a website to provide PARENTS information about my classes.
17% (n=7)
83% (n=34)
I use technology to collaborate with other educators to support my own professional growth.
12% (n=5)
88% (n=36)
I use a variety of assessment instruments/methods when evaluating student work performed or created with technology.
17% (n=7)
83% (n=34)
I have taken college courses related to the integration of technology.
32% (n=13)
68% (n=28)
I. Technology Use A. Technology use in core content.
The first yes/no question assessed if teachers “actively look for new lesson plans that focus on ... core content that include the use of technology” (Table 4). Eight out of 10 teachers actively search for these types of lessons and 2 out of 10 do not. Analysis: One of the goals of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report is academic proficiency by providing software that is aligned to curriculum (SLSD, 2011, p. 11) One 21st Century Skill (P21, 2011) is to design core content lessons lesson plans that include innovations. Although most teachers (80%) actively implement core content materials that utilizes technology, yet 20% do not. Recommendation: Offer Professional Development (PD) that provides training and resources for technology-rich core lessons. In addition, teachers can collaborate with each other and share the resources within their grade levels or subject content.
B. Utilize variety of software.
This question asked if teachers “utilized a variety of technology in order to teach and complete other duties” (Table 4). More than 9 out of 10 (93%) teachers utilize a variety of technology. Analysis: The goal is to gain competency in a variety of technology and integrate it into the curriculum (ALSDE, p. 19). Even though 93% of teachers utilize a variety of technology to teach, yet 80% of these same teachers took an active interest in improving core content lessons that utilize technology. Although technology, for the most part, is being well utilized to teach, it is not always used to improve core content lessons. Using CAMs levels of use, evaluate where teachers are in terms of technology use. It can be observed that 93% of teachers have established a routine use of technology (Level 4a) and 80% have refined their use of technology to increase the benefits (Level 4b).Recommendation: The goal is to have 100% of teachers utilizing technology in a variety of ways, but this increase should result in an increase in quality of lessons as well. Staff training should continue to focus on teachers utilizing varied technology that supports quality lessons.
C. Class Websites for communication and content.
These two questions assessed teacher use of Websites. The first question asked if they “maintain a website to provide parents with information about … classes.” Of the 41 surveyed, 83% responded with a “yes” that they actively use a Website to communicate with parents; the remaining 17% responded they do not (Table 4). The next assessed if teachers “created and maintain a website to provide students a content-rich resource to use from home or school.” Of those surveyed, 68% responded with a “yes” that they actively use a content-rich Website; the remaining 32% responded they do not. Analysis: One of the goals of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report is for teachers to have rich-content Websites that offer resources such as newsletters, podcasts, surveys, news sites, homework assignments, calendars, alerts, pages, and exam schedules as well as improve communication with parents and students (2011, pp. 7, 21, 28). The majority of teachers, that is 8 out of 10, use websites to communicate with parents. However, this number decreases to 7 out of 10 when the Website use extends to include a “content-rich resource to use from home or school.” Although many teachers utilize website to communicate and deliver rich resources still 2 out of 10 are not using it communicate and 3 out of 10 do not use it for content delivery. Recommendation: One of the goals of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report is to provide workshops for teacher website development (2011, pp. 21). Teachers can take advantage of these to create and maintain websites that go beyond communicating to parents and become a content-rich resource for students at school and home. Teachers can work in cooperative groups with those who have successfully created and utilized Websites.It would be important to find out why not all teachers are using websites for content-rich resources and communication.
D. Teacher collaboration.
The next question assessed if teachers “collaborate with other educators to support … professional growth (Table 4). Nearly 9 out of 10 teachers responded that they collaborate and the rest responded they do not. Analysis: One of the goals of the Educational Technology Plan (2011) is teacher collaboration to mentor others in their use of technology and enhance their instructional strategies (SLSD, pp. 8, 28). It is also one of the goals of Partnership for 21st Century Skills and NET Standards for Teachers. Research shows that as teachers collaborate, their use of technology increases (Tech & Learning, 2010). Since nearly 9 out of 10 teachers collaborate, it is a good model to those who do not. Recommendation: Offer PD opportunities for collaborative learning. Promote teacher collaboration to support professional growth in learning and using new technologies to deliver technology-rich content lessons and content-rich Websites.
E. Evaluating student technology use.
Teachers evaluated their own use of “assessment instruments/methods when evaluating student work performed or created with technology” (Table 4). Of the 41 surveyed, 83% agreed they assess student work that utilizes technology and the remaining 17% disagreed. Conclusion: One of the goals in the Educational Technology Report is to evaluate student proficient in technology (SLSD, 2011, p. 15). Even though most teachers are successfully using a variety of instruments to assess student work that involves technology, yet a significant 17% do not. Recommendation: Offer PD that teaches the reason for using assessment instruments and how to use them. Continue to offer resources to assess student proficiency in both current and emerging technologies.
F. College training in integration.
The last yes / no question assesses if teachers have taken “college courses related to the integration of technology” (Table 4). Sixty-eight percent of those responding indicated that have taken courses on technology integration. Analysis: One of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report’s (2011) goals is to support integration (pp. 5, 52, 53). It appears that two-thirds of staff are voluntarily preparing for technology implementation and a third are not. As more teachers are trained to integrate technology, its use will increase. Recommendation: Provide PD that includes “current research and best practices in effective models of technology integration” (ALSDE, p. 21).
Table 5.
Extent Use of Technology
Response
Not Up-to-date
Somewhat Up-to-date
Very Up-to-date
I consider myself up-to-date on current technology devices and software.
7% (n=3)
49% (n=20)
44% (n=18)
Response
Less Often
Once Per Month
Once Per Week
I design lesson plans focused on my core content that include the use of technology.
12% (n=5)
20% (n=8)
68% (n=28)
Response
Never
Annual
Semester
Marking Period
I use technology to collect and/or analyze data in order to make decisions regarding changes I may want to make in my teaching priorities and strategies.
7% (n=3)
12% (n=5)
44% (n=18)
37% (n=15)
Response
Semester
Marking Period
Weekly
Daily
I use email on a _ basis for communicating with parents.
3% (n=1)
7% (n=3)
44% (n=18)
46% (n=19)
Response
Less Often
Weekly
Daily
Students use computers in my classroom on a _ basis.
29% (n=12)
34% (n=14)
37% (n=15)
G. Teachers up-to-date on technology.
This question assesses if teachers consider themselves “up-to-date on current technology devices and software?” (Table 5). Of the 41 respondents, 44% responded they were very up-to-date; 49 % indicated they were somewhat up-to-date, and the remaining 7 % felt they were not up-to-date. Analysis: Some goals of the Educational Technology Plan (2011) are engaging students in 21st century technology skills (p. 2, 4), integrating technology across the curriculum (p. 4), and supporting and improving student achievement (p. 5). Even though 9 out of 10 teachers use a variety of technologies to perform teaching activities (Table 4), yet only half of the teachers indicated they were only somewhat up-to-date with the latest technology (Table 5). Even though teachers extensively use a variety of technology, yet there is a need to master The results shows that a large majority of teachers acknowledge needing more skills/training to master using newer and high quality technologies. Recommendation: Continue to offer PD in high quality, current technology devices and software.
H. Technology use in core content.
This question assessed if teachers design lesson plans that focus on “core content that include the use of technology” (Table 5). Sixty-eight percentindicated they design lessons that focus on core content once per week, 20% do this once per month, and 12 % do this less often. Analysis: One of the goals of Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011) is to design core content lessons lesson plans that include innovations. This question is similar to a yes/no question in Table 4 that asked if teachers “actively look for new lesson plans that focus on ... core content that include the use of technology.” Thus, 80% of teachers actively search for core content lessons that use technology (Table 4), and 68% of teachers design lesson that focus on core content that use technology once a week (Table 5). This 12% difference in searching and actually designing lesson plans that focus on core content may indicate a need to learn how to design lessons based upon searches. Recommendation: PD to train teachers how to design lessons that use technology.
I. Use technology to collect and analyze data.
The next question asked teachers if they “collect and/or analyze data in order to make decisions regarding changes … in [their]… teaching priorities and strategies” (Table 5). Of the 41 surveyed, 37% responded they collect and/or evaluate data once within a marking period; 44% responded they do this once a semester; 12% do this annually; and the remaining 7 % never evaluate data. Analysis: The purpose for teachers collecting and analyzing data is to meet the needs of individual students and improve student achievement (SLSD, 2011, p. 22). If only 37% of teachers evaluate teaching strategies and priorities on a quarterly basis, then only their classes receive those benefits. If 44% of teachers evaluate teaching strategies and priorities on a semester basis, then only their classes receive those benefits once during the school year. The 12% that gather and evaluate data at the end of the year can only use strategies for the incoming students. The 7% teachers who never collect or analyze data cannot make informed decisions about teaching priorities and strategies. When teachers infrequently evaluate their strategies, students do not receive the benefits from improved instruction and strategies. Recommendation: Teachers should utilize PD “opportunities to learn how to analyze data tools including EdInsight, PVAAS, and achievement data” (SLSD, 2011, p. 22). Continue to provide data collecting tools and teach how to use, evaluate, and apply the results. Have teachers collect and evaluate data on a quarterly basis. J. Emailing.
The next question assessed the use of emailing to communicate with parents. Of the 41 surveyed, 46% communicate daily, 44% communicate weekly, 7% communicate quarterly, and 2% communicate once a semester (Table 5). This amounts to 90% of teachers communicating on a weekly basis or more. Analysis: One of the goals of SLSD’s Educational Technology Plan (2011) is to “enhance effective school/ parent/community interaction and communication” (SLSD, p. 21).Teachers email parents to communicate about student progress, needs, and assignments to increase student achievement. In another survey question, 83% teachers indicated they use also Websites to communicate with parents (Table 4). When combining these two results, it appears that the majority of teachers communicate well. The results do not show if the 17% teachers who do not use Websites (Table 4) to communicate with parents choose instead to communicate by email. Recommendation: Continue to encourage teacher communications with parents by either Website or email. The district continues to provide tools to communicate with the community (SLSD, 2011, p. 21).
K. Students’ use of computers.
This question assessed the frequency of students’ use of computers. Of the 41 teachers who responded, 37% indicated their students used computers on a daily basis, 34% used them weekly, and remaining 29% used them less often (Table 5). Analysis: A goal of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report is to provide optimal access to technology tools to support student learning (2011 p. 10). On the other hand, about a third of students use it daily, a third weekly, and the remaining third less often. This shows that some students are not gaining equal access to technology to support learning and academic achievement. A lack of equal access may be attributed to not having a one-to-one environment. However, with a 2:1 ratio, all students have opportunities to use computers at least 2 to 3 times a week, but do not. Another reason for a lack of use may stem from 49% of teachers only being somewhat comfortable with new technology (Table 5) and therefore avoid using it with their students. Perhaps another reason is that teachers’ scheduling needs of computers conflict with other’s needs. Recommendation: Offer teachers PD to learn new and emerging technology as well as increase skill and ease in technology use. Continue to emphasize equal technology access to all students. Provide fair and equal scheduling of computer use for all students. Once the high school has implemented, a 1:1 environment, it will be informative to see if computer use increases. II. Teachers Views about 1:1 Computer Environment
The next 10 questions and responses are organized into a table for ease of analysis. Since the survey utilized Likert type questions, a mean was calculated for each question by assigning each category a numerical value: 1 for strongly disagree, 2 for disagree, 3 for agree, and 4 for strongly agree. Then the category number was multiplied by the number (n) of teachers who choose that answer. Then add these values and divide by the total number of respondents (n = 41). The resultant answer is the mean.
Table 6.
How do you feel about these topics with regard to a One to One environment?
Topics
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Agree (3)
Strongly Agree (4)
Mean
It will enhance learning.
8% (n = 3)
2% (n = 1)
51% (n = 21)
39% (n = 16)
M = 3.22
There will be less downtime in the class.
10% (n = 4)
24% (n = 10)
32% (n = 13 )
34% (n = 14)
M =2.90
Students have equal access to tools and software in and out of school.
2% (n = 1)
5% (n = 2)
44% (n = 18)
49% (n = 20)
M= 3.39
Students lose less work.
10% (n = 4)
12% (n = 5)
46% (n = 19)
32% (n = 13)
M= 3.10
Students will be more productive.
10% (n = 4)
17% (n = 7)
51% (n = 21)
22% (n = 9)
M = 2.85
There will be an increase in use of 21st Century Skills.
8% (n = 3)
5% (n = 2)
54% (n = 22)
34% (n = 14)
M = 3.14
Students will be more organized when using laptops.
10% (n = 4)
29% (n = 12)
34% (n = 14)
27% (n = 11)
M = 2.78
There will be an increase of teacher use because of daily accessibility.
5% (n = 2)
15% (n = 6)
53% (n = 22)
27% (n = 11)
M = 3.02
Teacher will incorporate more quadrant – D lessons.
8% (n = 3)
12% (n = 5)
53% (n = 22)
27% (n = 11)
M = 3.00
There will be an more time for students to work on technology homework and projects.
10% (n = 4)
8% (n = 3)
46% (n = 19)
36% (n = 15)
M = 3.10
Analysis: The majority of teacher responses showed that they strongly agree with the topics on implementation (Table 6). A strongly agree response can range from 3.00 to 4.00. Teachers strongly agreed with a 1:1 implementation to enhance student learning (M = 3.22), provide equal access to technology all the time (M = 3.39), less loss of work (M = 3.10), increase 21st Century Skills (m = 3.14), and more time to spend on homework and projects (3.10). Teachers in turn strongly agree that a 1:1 environment will increase their use of technology in the class (M = 3.02) and incorporate more quadrant – D lessons (M = 3.00). An agree response can range from 2.00 to 3.00. However, some teachers were not as convinced about student use when it came to less down time (M = 2.90), more productivity (m = 2.85), and more organization (m = 2.78). It would be informative to find out if there is a correlation between teachers’ current level of technology use and their responses on 1:1 implementation and (Loucks-Horsley, 1997). Recommendation: Provide PD for implementation and integration of technology; especially for teaching student productivity, organization, and efficiency time use. Summary
The need for and use of technology tools should increase as students enter high school. This helps prepares them for future careers and continued education. Although teacher strongly support 1:1 implementation in most areas, yet there is room for improvement in content-rich teacher Websites, teacher training in using current technology, teacher analysis of data to improve teaching strategies, and student use of computers. As the district continues to move towards a 1:1 environment for optimal access to technology (SLSD, 2011, p.10), teachers and students can better utilize available technology.
Rubrics for Teachers: Multimedia rubrics: digital photography, slide presentations, video project, podcasting, and more.
Technology Skills Checklist:
Grade Level Technology Skills Checklist – This list shows when technology skills should be introduced such a general computer use, keyboarding, word processing, presentation, and Internet browse and research.
i-SAFE: This is a “non-profit organization dedicated to educating and empowering youth (and others) to safely, responsibly and productively use Information and Communications Technologies.”
Loucks-Horsley, S. (1997). Professional development for science education: A critical and immediate challenge. In R. Bybee (Ed.) National standards & the science curriculum. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. Retrieved from http://www.mdecgateway.org/olms/data/resource/3712/CBAM.pdf
Southern Lehigh School District’s Educational Technology Report (2011) repeatedly refers to using survey instruments to collect data. The report states, “We will continue to use electronic surveys to collect data related to technology use and attitudes from all stakeholders” (SLSD, 2011, p. 52). One NET Standard for Teachers is systemic improvement to an organization by effectively using information (ISTE, 2009). Teacher implementation of technology can be assessed by “collecting and analyzing data, interpreting results, and sharing findings to improve staff performance and student learning (ISTE, 2009, p.2).
On March 30, 2012, a number of teachers throughout Southern Lehigh School District (SLSD) participated in a technology survey. The data has been analyzed and some recommendations have been made.
Grades K - 8 Survey Results
Out of 148 kindergarten through grade 8 teachers, 101 teachers participated in the technology survey—a 62% response rate. Teachers answered 25 questions on how they and their students use technology to support learning. Some questions required a yes or no response about technology use, but most questions assessed the degree or extent of technology use. Most of the data was organized into tables according to the type of response. In addition, some related responses were grouped together to simplify analysis.
I. Yes / No Reponses of Technology Use
Table1.
(n=6)
(n=9)
A. Technology use in core content.
The first yes/no question asked if teachers “actively look for new lesson plans that focus on ... core content that include the use of technology” (Table 1). Seven out of 10 teachers actively search for these types of lessons and 3 out of 10 do not. Analysis: One of the goals of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report is attaining academic proficiency by providing software that is aligned to curriculum (2011, p. 11). One of the 21st Century Skills (P21, 2011) is to design core content lessons lesson plans that include innovations. Although most teachers (70%) actively search for core-content materials that utilizes technology, yet 30% do not. Recommendation: Offer teachers Professional Development (PD) that provides resources for locating technology-rich core lessons. In addition, teachers can collaborate and share their own resources within their grade levels or subject content.
B. Utilize variety of software.
The next question examined if teachers “utilized a variety of technology in order to teach and complete other duties” (Table 1). Nine out of 10 teachers utilize a variety of technology. Analysis: The goal is to gain competency in a variety of technology and integrate it into the curriculum (ALSDE, p. 19). Even though 90% of teachers utilize a variety of technology to teach, yet (as noted in the previous response) only 70% of these same teachers took an active interest in improving core content lessons that utilize technology (Table1). Although technology, for the most part, is being well utilized to teach, it is not always used effectively--to improve core content lessons.
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) has identified seven levels of use that can guide professional development and help with adopting change (Loucks-Horsley, 1996).
CBAMs Levels of Use
When using CAM’s levels of use to evaluate where teachers are in their use of technology, we can see that 90% of teachers have established routine use of technology (Level 4a) and 70% have refined their use of technology to increase the benefits (Level 4b).(See Table 1). Recommendation: It would be beneficial for students to have 100% of teachers utilizing technology in a variety of ways, but this increase in use should result in an increase in quality lessons as well. Staff training should continue to focus on teachers utilizing varied technology that supports quality lessons.
C. Class Websites for communication and rich content.
The next two questions assess teachers’ creation and use of Websites. Most teachers (94%) create and maintain Websites to inform and communicate with parents about their classes (Table 1). From these same teachers, 73% use their Websites to provide students a content-rich resource to use at school or home (Table 1). Analysis: One of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report goals is for teachers to maintain and increase the use of teacher Web pages to share content-rich resources with students and to communicate with them and their parents (2011, p. 28). It is commendable that a large majority of teachers (95%) communicate with parents using a class Website. Yet, Websites have the potential of being more than a communication tool and become a content-rich resource tool. It appears 95% routinely use Websites to communicate (CBAM’s Level 4a), but 73% are going beyond adequate use and use it to increase the benefits (CBAM’s Level 4b). Recommendation: Offer PD to create and maintain websites that not only effectively communicate with parents but also become a content-rich resource for students at school and home. Teachers who have successfully created content-rich Websites can collaborate with and mentor those who have not.
D. Teacher collaboration.
This question assesses if teachers “use technology to collaborate with other educators to support … professional growth” (Table 1). Nine out of ten teachers indicated they do collaborate. Analysis: One of the goals of the Educational Technology Plan (2011) is teacher collaboration to mentor others in their use of technology and enhance their instructional strategies (SLSD, pp. 8, 28). It is also one of the goals of Partnership for 21st Century Skills and NET Standards for Teachers. According to CBAMs levels of use, it appears most teachers are at level 5 of integration—educators combine efforts with colleagues to improve benefits. Recommendation: Promote teacher collaboration to support professional growth in learning and using new technologies to deliver technology-rich content lessons and content-rich Websites.
E. Cyberbullying.
This question evaluates if teachers have “dealt with issues related to cyberbullying” within their classrooms (Table 1). Of those surveyed, 30% indicated it is a problem. Analysis: No child in public school should be bullied and feel unsafe. These results are consistent with a 2012 Pew Report that indicated that 27% of children from ages 11 – 16 are bullied at least once a month (Lenhart, 2010, slide 13). A goal of the district’s Educational Technology Report is to enhance educational opportunities that include cyber safety (SLSD, 2011, p. 31). Federal laws such as Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act in 2008 endorse Internet Safety in schools. Schools must certify they are educating students “about appropriate online behavior, including interacting with other individuals on social networking websites and in chat rooms, and cyberbullying awareness and response” (FCC, 2011, p. 3). Recommendation: Provide PD that focuses on cyberbullying and digital citizenship. The district can continue to utilize iSAFE, an online cyber-safety education program. Common Sense Media is another quality program.
F. College training in integration.
The last yes / no question assesses if teachers have taken “college courses related to the integration of technology” (Table 1). Fifty-eight percent of those responding indicated that have taken courses on technology integration. Analysis: One of the Educational Technology Report’s goals is to support integration (2011, pp. 5, 52, 53). Although many teachers have voluntarily taken technology integration courses, still 42% have not. As more teachers are trained to integrate technology, its use will increase. Recommendation: Provide PD that includes “current research and best practices in effective models of technology integration” (ALSDE, p. 21).
II. The Extent of Technology Use
Table 2.
(n=3)
(n=62)
(n=36)
Per Month
(n=3)
(n=2)
(n=2)
(n=13)
(n=81)
(n=11)
(n=5)
(n=12)
(n=73)
(n=1)
(n=11)
(n=23)
(n=66)
(n=15)
(n=17)
(n=69)
(n=2)
(n=20)
(n=79)
A. Teachers up-to-date on technology.
Teachers were evaluated if they are “up-to-date on current technology devices and software” (Table 2). Of the 101 surveyed, the most frequent answer was somewhat up-to-date at 61%. The remainder responded they were very up-to-date at 36% and not up-to-date for 3%. Analysis: Some goals of SLSD’s Educational Technology Plan are engaging students in 21st century technology skills (2011, p. 2, 4), integrating technology across the curriculum (p. 4), and supporting and improving student achievement (p. 5). This question assesses whether teachers are using high quality and current technology and software. Earlier responses showed 90% of teachers using a variety of software to teach lessons (Table 1), yet 61% is a significant percentage of teachers who acknowledged needing more skills and training to use current technology and software. Recommendation: PD needs to focus on training on up-to-date or current technology and software that is available within the district.
B. Technology use in core content.
This question assessed if teachers design lesson plans that focus on “core content that include the use of technology” (Table 2). Eighty percentindicated they design lessons that focus on core content 2 to 5 times a week, 13% do this once a week, 2 % do this 2 to 4 times a month, 2% do this once a month, and finally 3% never do. Analysis: One of the goals of Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011) is to design core content lessons lesson plans that include innovations. This question is similar to a yes/no question in Table 1 that examined if teachers “actively look for new lesson plans that focus on ... core content that include the use of technology.” Thus, 70% of teachers actively search for core-content lessons that use technology, and 80% of teachers design lesson that focus on core content that use technology 2 –5 times a week. It is not clear why 10% less teachers look for core-content lessons than those who design them. This difference may indicate some ambiguity of understanding on the teachers’ part what looking for and designing core-content lessons entails. Recommendation: PD to train teachers how to search for and design core-content lessons that use technology.
C. Use Technology to collect and analyze data.
This question evaluates if teachers use “technology to collect and/or analyze data in order to make decisions regarding changes … [they] want to make in … teaching priorities and strategies” (Table 2). The data reveals that 72% of teachers collect and analyze data once during a marking period. From the remaining teachers, 12% do so once a semester, 5% annually and 11% never. Analysis: The purpose for teachers collecting and analyzing data is to meet the needs of individual students and improve student achievement (SLSD, 2011, p. 22). When 7 out of 10 teachers seek to improve teaching priorities and strategies per marking period, then 7 out of 10 classes receive those benefits. The 5% of the teachers that evaluate at the end of the year can only use strategies for next year’s students. The 11% teachers who never collect or analyze data cannot make informed decisions about teaching priorities and strategies. Thus, one out of ten classes never benefit from analyzed data. Recommendation: Teachers should utilize PD “opportunities to learn how to analyze data tools including EdInsight, PVAAS, and achievement data” (SLSD, 2011, p. 22). Teachers should collect and evaluate data on a quarterly basis to make changes in teaching priorities and strategies that benefit the needs of students.
D. Emailing.
This question measures how often teachers email to communicate with parents (Table 2). Of the 101 surveyed, 54% communicate daily, 23% communicate weekly, 11% communicate quarterly, and 1% communicates once a semester. Analysis: A goal of district’s Educational Technology Plan is to “enhance effective school/ parent/community interaction and communication” (SLSD, 2011, p. 21).The objective of emailing is to communicate effectively with parents about student progress, needs, and assignments to increase student achievement. A preceding response revealed that the majority (94%) of these same teachers use class Websites to communicate with parents (Table 1). It is unclear whether the 6% who do not use Websites to communicate with parents do so by email. Recommendation: Continue to encourage teacher communications with parents by either Website or email.
E. Students’ use of computers.
This question measures the frequency of students’ use of computers. Teachers indicated that 68% of the students use computers on a daily basis, 17% use them weekly, and remaining 15% use them less often (Table 2). Analysis: A goal of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report is to provide optimal access to technology tools to support student learning (2011 p. 10). Even though approximately two-thirds of the students use computers every day, yet about a third of them use computers weekly or less often. This shows that some students do not have equal access to technology to support academic achievement. A lack of equal access may be attributed to not having a one-to-one environment. With a 2:1 ratio, all students have the potential to use computers at least 2 to 3 times a week, but do not. So, there might to other reasons. A lack of use may stem from 61% teachers acknowledging that they only felt somewhat up-to-date with technology use and therefore may avoid having their students use it if it involves unfamiliar technology. Perhaps there are scheduling conflicts as well. Recommendation: Teachers should utilize PD to increase skill and ease in technology use. Teachers should be encouraged to provide equal opportunities for all students to use technology as they learn core content. In addition, schedule computer use to ensure equal use. Continue to bring the district closer to a 1:1 ratio.
F. Administrators model technology use.
Teachers were asked if school administrators model the use of technology by using it for correspondence, communications, presentations, and /or data analysis (Table 2). From those surveyed, 78% regularly modeled using technology for administrative responsibilities, 20% sometime modeled these skills, and 2% reported they never modeled these skills. Analysis: A goal of the Educational Technology Plan is that administrators “model the use of technology by using it for correspondence, communications, presentations, and /or data analysis” (SLSD, 2011, p. 2). In addition, one of ISTE’s NET Standards for Administrators is to model and promoting frequent and effective technology use. The second NET Standard states that Administrators will promote a digital-age learning culture by modeling and promoting “frequent and effective use of technology” (ISTE, 2009b, p. 1). A majority (78%) of teachers acknowledged that administrators regularly modeled the use of technology. Most of the remaining administrators sometimes (20%) model these skills. Recommendation: The Educational Technology Report states the district will “develop a differentiated plan for all … administrators to develop a personal professional growth plan to demonstrate proficiency in the NET Standards” (SLSD, 2011, p. 18). It is important for administrators to model technology to teachers and students.
G. Technology disbursement/sharing.
Figure1. Indicates how teachers feel about the availability of mobile computer cart
This question measured teachers’ impressions about disbursement/sharing of technology. Although 43% of the teachers had little trouble gaining access to carts for their students, yet 45% indicated there were some scheduling issues (Figure 1). Thirteen percent found it difficult to access them. Analysis: There appear to be issues in equal access to technology use since (13%) confirmed difficultly signing out technology and 45% had some difficulty. When these responses are compared to earlier responses that indicated approximately two thirds (68%) of students use computers on a daily basis, but one third used computers weekly (17%) or less (15%) (See Table 2). Thus, this lower number of use could be attributed to difficulty of access. Recommendation: Make a schedule to ensure equal use of computers. As the district continues to move toward a 1:1 environment to optimize access to technology (SLSD, 2011, p.10), computer sharing and scheduling will be less of an issue.
Table 3.
Software for Remediation.
Students’ use of remedial software ranged from 21% using it daily, to 25% using it 2-4 times per week, to 16% using it weekly, to 13% using it once a marking period, and to 25% never using it (Table 3). Although this amounts to 63% using it on a weekly basis, yet students’ use differed greatly ranging from daily (21%) to never (25%). Analysis: The use of remedial software varies greatly and depends upon the need. Perhaps teachers are not analyzing students’ needs and providing remedial help to increase student achievement. An earlier question assessed if teachers analyzed data to make decisions about teaching strategies (Table 2). Teacher analysis of data to improve strategies ranged from 72% a marking period, to 12% a semester, to 5% annually, and to 11% never. A relationship appears to emerge since 25% of teachers never use remedial software and 28% analyze data less often than a marking period. Recommendation: It is recommended that teachers collect and analyze data each marking period. This will help them assess student performance and then better utilize remediation software. If teachers do not know how to use software for remediation they should utilize PD to learn how to use it.
Software for enhancement.
Students’ use of software for enhancement ranged from 15% using it daily, to 27% using it 2-4 times per week, to 23% using it weekly, to 17% using it once a marking period, to 18% never using it (Table 3). Thus, 65% used software for enhancement weekly, but the remaining 35% students used it rarely or never. Analysis: The use of software for enhancement depends upon the need. When a third of the students rarely or never use it, it appears to be underutilized. Recommendation: It is recommended that all teachers use software for enhancement to enrich their lessons. If teachers do not know how to use software for enhancement they should utilize PD to learn how to use it.
Software for practice/reinforcement.
Students’ use of practice and reinforcement software ranged from 26% using it daily, to 26% using it 2-4 times per week, to 21% using it weekly, to14% using it once a marking period, to 13% never using it (Table 3). This amounts to 73% using it weekly. Analysis: The use of practice and reinforcement software depends upon the need. However, when 27% of the students rarely or never use it, it appears to be underutilized, and they will not benefit from its use. A previous question assessed if teachers analyzed data to make decisions about teaching strategies. Teacher analysis of data ranged from 72% a marking period, to 12% a semester, to 5% annually, and to 11% never analyzing data to improve strategies (Table 2). There appears to be a relationship between student use of practice and reinforcement software and teacher analysis of data—27% of students rarely or never used practice/reinforcement softwareand 28% of teachers infrequently or never analyzed data. Recommendation: Teachers collect and analyze data about student performance, and then, utilize software for practice and reinforcement to support student achievement. If teachers do not know how to use software for practice and reinforcement they should utilize PD to learn how to use it.
Internet and software for research.
Students’ use of Internet and software for research ranged from 15% using it daily, to 42% using it 2-4 times per week, to 22% using it weekly, to 14% using it once a marking period, to 7% never using it (Table 3). This amounts to 79% of students using it weekly. Analysis: The goal for using Internet and software for research is to increase 21st Century Skills, especially in Information Literacy to access, evaluate, use, and manage information (P21, 2011). Part D of NCLB Act (Enhancing Education Through Technology Act of 2001), gives this objective: “To assist every student in crossing the digital divide by ensuring that every student is technologically literate by the time the student finishes the eighth grade, regardless of the student's race, ethnicity, gender, family income, geographic location, or disability” (ED.Gov, 2004, sec. 2402 b,1,A). As students begin to construct their own knowledge, Internet use and research software becomes much more important. It is also a way to connect with, understand, and solve real world problems. When 20% of students rarely or never use the Internet and software for research then they are not being taught the following Information Literacy skills: accessing, evaluating, using, and managing information. Recommendation: It is recommended that teachers increase student use of Internet and software for research so students gain experience in Information Literacy and other 21st Century Skills. If teachers do not know how to use Internet and software for research they should utilize PD to learn how to use it.
Application software for projects or assignments.
Students’ use of application software for projects or assignments(i.e. Word, PowerPoint, Web page, Excel, Graphing Software, etc.) ranged from 4% using it daily, to 12% using it 2-4 times per week, to 16% using it weekly, to 39% using it once a marking period, to 29% never using it (Table 3). This amounts to 32% of students using application software on a weekly basis. Analysis: The goal for using application software is to support the technology needs of students by providing optimal access to technology (SLSD, 2011, p. 10) and fulfill the objectives of NCLB. It is significant that that 39% use application software once per marking period and the other 29% never use it at all—that is nearly 70% of K – 9 students. Even though SLSD schools have a 2:1 student to computer ratio, the level of use indicates that application software is greatly under-utilized. Recommendation: It is recommended that teachers teach and increase student use of application software and other 21st Century Skills. If some of these teachers are not proficient in application software and therefore are reluctant to use them with their students, then training to use them is essential.
Software and graphing calculators to collect and analyze data.
Students’ use of software and graphing calculators to collect and analyze data ranged from 3% using it daily, to 5% using it 2 – 4 time per week, to 9% using it once a week, to 26% using it once per marking period, to 57% never using it (Table 3). This amounts to 17% of students using it weekly. Analysis: The goal for using software and graphing calculators to collect and analyze data is to support specific technology needs of the students. Another goal is for students to increase in 21st Century Skills such as productivity and accountability. When data shows that more than half--57%--never use it at all, it is either underutilized or not needed by most students. Software and graphing calculators’ use may be limited to certain subjects. Recommendation: It is recommended for teachers to increase student use of software and graphing calculators to collect and analyze data software in classes that require it. If teachers do not know how to use it, PD should provide training.
Devices to prepare assignments.
Students’ use of devices to prepare or present assignments (i.e. iPads/iPods, laptops, digital cameras, scanners, Interactive Whiteboards, Digital Projectors, document cameras, etc.)ranged from 12% using it daily, to 13% using it 2 – 4 time per week, to 13% using it once a week, to 35% using it once per marking period, to 27 % never using it (Table 3). This totals to 38% of students using devices weekly. Analysis: The goal for using devices is to provide optimal access to technology tools to support student learning (SLSD, 2011 p. 10) and fulfill the objectives of NCLB. Even though SLSD schools have a 2:1 student to computer ratio as well as supportive technology, it is significant that 62% of students rarely or never use these tools for assignment preparation or presentation. This indicates that available devices are under-utilized. Recommendation: It is recommended that teachers optimize use of iPads/iPods, laptops, digital cameras, scanners, interactive whiteboards and digital projectors, and document cameras to provide a technology-rich environment and increase student productivity, accountability, and other 21st Century Skills. If teacher do not know how to use these devices to prepare and present assignments PD training should be utilized. Perhaps there needs to be further investigation as to why there is such a low level of use.
Software and Internet used to problem solve and make decisions.
Students’ use of software and the Internet for problem solving and decision-making (i.e., data analysis, concept mapping, etc.) ranged from 6% using it daily, to 7% using it 2 – 4 time per week, to 17% using it once a week, to 37% using it once per marking period (Table 3). This amounts to 30 % of students using software and the Internet to problem solve and make decisions on a basis weekly. Analysis: The goal for using software and the Internet to problem solve and make decisions is to support the technology needs of the students and fulfill the objectives of 21st Century Skills. It is significant that only 37% of students use software and the Internet to problem solve and make decisions only once a marking period and the other 33% never use it at all. Thus, when 70% of students rarely or never use software and the Internet to problem solve and make decisions, then it needs to be evaluated as to why. Recommendation: It is recommended that teachers increase their students’ use of software and Internet to think critically, problem solve, make decisions, and use other 21st Century Skills. If teacher do not know how to teach 21st Century Skills like problem solving and decision-making, PD training should be utilized if needed.
Use a variety of digital communication/collaboration with others.
Students’ use of email, message boards, web meetings, or other forms digital communication and collaboration with other students, experts, professionals ranged from 13% using it daily, to 10% using it 2 – 4 time per week, to 13% using it once a week, to 21% using it once per marking period, to 43 % never using it (Table 3). This amounts to 36 % weekly communicating or collaborating with other students and experts. Analysis: The goal for communicating and collaborating with others is to support the technology needs of the students and fulfill the objectives of 21st Century skill of communicating clearly and collaborating with others. It is significant that 21% communicate or collaborate with others only once a marking period and the other 43% never do so all. When 64% of students rarely or never use software and the Internet to problem solve and make decisions, then it needs to be evaluated as to why. Recommendation: It is recommended that teachers increase the use of communicating clearly, collaborating with others, and other 21st Century Skills. If teacher do not know how to use these skills, PD training should be utilized.
Use digital video editing to create video presentations.
Students’ use of digital video editing to create video presentations ranged from 1% using it daily, to 4% using it 2 – 4 time per week, to 4% using it once a week, to 28% using it once per marking period, to 63 % never using it (Table 3). This amounts to 9 % of students weekly editing to create video presentations. Analysis: The goal for learning to digital video editing to create video presentations is to teach the use of technology tools and support the technology needs of the students. It also fulfills the objectives of 21st Century skill of thinking and working creatively either dependently or in collaboration with others. Another important 21st Century Skill is Media Literacy, the ability to analyze and create media products. It is significant that 28% digital video edit to create video presentations only once per marking period and the other 63% never do so all. When 91% of students rarely or never use digital video editing to create video presentations, then it needs to be evaluated as to why. Recommendation: It is recommended that teachers increase students’ skills in Media Literacy, communicating clearly, collaborating with others, and other 21st Century Skills. If teacher do not know how to use video editing software, PD training should be utilized.
Distance learning.
Figure 2. The bar graph shows the extent that video conferencing is used and how.
Teachers’ use of distance learning (video conferencing technology) ranged from 14% using it once per marking period and 86 % never using it (Figure 2). Analysis: The district’s Educational Technology Report (2011) supports the use video conferencing to motivate students in the area of multimedia development (p. 6), to increase global connections (p. 14), and use 21 century skills to “boost student creativity and innovation and enhance critical thinking, problem solving and decision making” (p. 17). Video conferencing was first introduced in 2009 (SLSD, 2011, p. 16), but since only 14% utilize it once per marking period then its use is still limited. Recommended: Continue to offer PD to train teachers in the use of video conferencing as well as where this technology can be utilized to support learning in the classrooms.
Summary
The need for technology tools differs greatly depending upon the age, abilities, and needs of K-8 students. Although many teachers and students in K - 8 utilize a variety of technology, yet there is room for improvement in designing new lessons that include the use of technology content-rich teacher Websites, cyber safety, teacher training in using current technology, teacher analysis of data to improve teaching strategies, and student use of computers. In addition, teachers can better utilize software for remediation, enhancement, reinforcement, research, application, and 21st Century Skills. They can teach students to better utilize hardware to prepare and present assignments. There are sufficient resources to ensure weekly access and use of key resources like computers, supportive devices, and educational software. As the district continues to move towards a 1:1 environment for optimal access to technology (SLSD, 2011, p.10), teachers and students will be better able to access and utilize technology.
Powerpoint Presentation of K - 8 Survey Results
Grades 9 – 12 Survey Results
From the high school, 41 of the 84 teachers responded to a technology survey, which is a 49%response rate. The first eleven survey questions mostly assessed teacher technology use in core content as well as proficiency. The remaining eleven questions focused on 1:1 implementation of computers. These questions help establish a baseline since the high school will be a 1:1 computing environment for the 2012 – 2013 school year.
Table 4.
Disagree
Agree
(n=8)
(n=33)
(n=3)
(n=38)
(n=28)
(n=7)
(n=34)
(n=5)
(n=36)
(n=7)
(n=34)
(n=28)
I. Technology Use
A. Technology use in core content.
The first yes/no question assessed if teachers “actively look for new lesson plans that focus on ... core content that include the use of technology” (Table 4). Eight out of 10 teachers actively search for these types of lessons and 2 out of 10 do not. Analysis: One of the goals of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report is academic proficiency by providing software that is aligned to curriculum (SLSD, 2011, p. 11) One 21st Century Skill (P21, 2011) is to design core content lessons lesson plans that include innovations. Although most teachers (80%) actively implement core content materials that utilizes technology, yet 20% do not. Recommendation: Offer Professional Development (PD) that provides training and resources for technology-rich core lessons. In addition, teachers can collaborate with each other and share the resources within their grade levels or subject content.
B. Utilize variety of software.
This question asked if teachers “utilized a variety of technology in order to teach and complete other duties” (Table 4). More than 9 out of 10 (93%) teachers utilize a variety of technology. Analysis: The goal is to gain competency in a variety of technology and integrate it into the curriculum (ALSDE, p. 19). Even though 93% of teachers utilize a variety of technology to teach, yet 80% of these same teachers took an active interest in improving core content lessons that utilize technology. Although technology, for the most part, is being well utilized to teach, it is not always used to improve core content lessons. Using CAMs levels of use, evaluate where teachers are in terms of technology use. It can be observed that 93% of teachers have established a routine use of technology (Level 4a) and 80% have refined their use of technology to increase the benefits (Level 4b).Recommendation: The goal is to have 100% of teachers utilizing technology in a variety of ways, but this increase should result in an increase in quality of lessons as well. Staff training should continue to focus on teachers utilizing varied technology that supports quality lessons.
C. Class Websites for communication and content.
These two questions assessed teacher use of Websites. The first question asked if they “maintain a website to provide parents with information about … classes.” Of the 41 surveyed, 83% responded with a “yes” that they actively use a Website to communicate with parents; the remaining 17% responded they do not (Table 4). The next assessed if teachers “created and maintain a website to provide students a content-rich resource to use from home or school.” Of those surveyed, 68% responded with a “yes” that they actively use a content-rich Website; the remaining 32% responded they do not. Analysis: One of the goals of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report is for teachers to have rich-content Websites that offer resources such as newsletters, podcasts, surveys, news sites, homework assignments, calendars, alerts, pages, and exam schedules as well as improve communication with parents and students (2011, pp. 7, 21, 28). The majority of teachers, that is 8 out of 10, use websites to communicate with parents. However, this number decreases to 7 out of 10 when the Website use extends to include a “content-rich resource to use from home or school.” Although many teachers utilize website to communicate and deliver rich resources still 2 out of 10 are not using it communicate and 3 out of 10 do not use it for content delivery. Recommendation: One of the goals of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report is to provide workshops for teacher website development (2011, pp. 21). Teachers can take advantage of these to create and maintain websites that go beyond communicating to parents and become a content-rich resource for students at school and home. Teachers can work in cooperative groups with those who have successfully created and utilized Websites.It would be important to find out why not all teachers are using websites for content-rich resources and communication.
D. Teacher collaboration.
The next question assessed if teachers “collaborate with other educators to support … professional growth (Table 4). Nearly 9 out of 10 teachers responded that they collaborate and the rest responded they do not. Analysis: One of the goals of the Educational Technology Plan (2011) is teacher collaboration to mentor others in their use of technology and enhance their instructional strategies (SLSD, pp. 8, 28). It is also one of the goals of Partnership for 21st Century Skills and NET Standards for Teachers. Research shows that as teachers collaborate, their use of technology increases (Tech & Learning, 2010). Since nearly 9 out of 10 teachers collaborate, it is a good model to those who do not. Recommendation: Offer PD opportunities for collaborative learning. Promote teacher collaboration to support professional growth in learning and using new technologies to deliver technology-rich content lessons and content-rich Websites.
E. Evaluating student technology use.
Teachers evaluated their own use of “assessment instruments/methods when evaluating student work performed or created with technology” (Table 4). Of the 41 surveyed, 83% agreed they assess student work that utilizes technology and the remaining 17% disagreed. Conclusion: One of the goals in the Educational Technology Report is to evaluate student proficient in technology (SLSD, 2011, p. 15). Even though most teachers are successfully using a variety of instruments to assess student work that involves technology, yet a significant 17% do not. Recommendation: Offer PD that teaches the reason for using assessment instruments and how to use them. Continue to offer resources to assess student proficiency in both current and emerging technologies.
F. College training in integration.
The last yes / no question assesses if teachers have taken “college courses related to the integration of technology” (Table 4). Sixty-eight percent of those responding indicated that have taken courses on technology integration. Analysis: One of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report’s (2011) goals is to support integration (pp. 5, 52, 53). It appears that two-thirds of staff are voluntarily preparing for technology implementation and a third are not. As more teachers are trained to integrate technology, its use will increase. Recommendation: Provide PD that includes “current research and best practices in effective models of technology integration” (ALSDE, p. 21).
Table 5.
(n=3)
(n=20)
(n=18)
(n=5)
(n=8)
(n=28)
(n=3)
(n=5)
(n=18)
(n=15)
(n=1)
(n=3)
(n=18)
(n=19)
(n=14)
(n=15)
G. Teachers up-to-date on technology.
This question assesses if teachers consider themselves “up-to-date on current technology devices and software?” (Table 5). Of the 41 respondents, 44% responded they were very up-to-date; 49 % indicated they were somewhat up-to-date, and the remaining 7 % felt they were not up-to-date. Analysis: Some goals of the Educational Technology Plan (2011) are engaging students in 21st century technology skills (p. 2, 4), integrating technology across the curriculum (p. 4), and supporting and improving student achievement (p. 5). Even though 9 out of 10 teachers use a variety of technologies to perform teaching activities (Table 4), yet only half of the teachers indicated they were only somewhat up-to-date with the latest technology (Table 5). Even though teachers extensively use a variety of technology, yet there is a need to master The results shows that a large majority of teachers acknowledge needing more skills/training to master using newer and high quality technologies. Recommendation: Continue to offer PD in high quality, current technology devices and software.
H. Technology use in core content.
This question assessed if teachers design lesson plans that focus on “core content that include the use of technology” (Table 5). Sixty-eight percentindicated they design lessons that focus on core content once per week, 20% do this once per month, and 12 % do this less often. Analysis: One of the goals of Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011) is to design core content lessons lesson plans that include innovations. This question is similar to a yes/no question in Table 4 that asked if teachers “actively look for new lesson plans that focus on ... core content that include the use of technology.” Thus, 80% of teachers actively search for core content lessons that use technology (Table 4), and 68% of teachers design lesson that focus on core content that use technology once a week (Table 5). This 12% difference in searching and actually designing lesson plans that focus on core content may indicate a need to learn how to design lessons based upon searches. Recommendation: PD to train teachers how to design lessons that use technology.
I. Use technology to collect and analyze data.
The next question asked teachers if they “collect and/or analyze data in order to make decisions regarding changes … in [their]… teaching priorities and strategies” (Table 5). Of the 41 surveyed, 37% responded they collect and/or evaluate data once within a marking period; 44% responded they do this once a semester; 12% do this annually; and the remaining 7 % never evaluate data. Analysis: The purpose for teachers collecting and analyzing data is to meet the needs of individual students and improve student achievement (SLSD, 2011, p. 22). If only 37% of teachers evaluate teaching strategies and priorities on a quarterly basis, then only their classes receive those benefits. If 44% of teachers evaluate teaching strategies and priorities on a semester basis, then only their classes receive those benefits once during the school year. The 12% that gather and evaluate data at the end of the year can only use strategies for the incoming students. The 7% teachers who never collect or analyze data cannot make informed decisions about teaching priorities and strategies. When teachers infrequently evaluate their strategies, students do not receive the benefits from improved instruction and strategies. Recommendation: Teachers should utilize PD “opportunities to learn how to analyze data tools including EdInsight, PVAAS, and achievement data” (SLSD, 2011, p. 22). Continue to provide data collecting tools and teach how to use, evaluate, and apply the results. Have teachers collect and evaluate data on a quarterly basis.
J. Emailing.
The next question assessed the use of emailing to communicate with parents. Of the 41 surveyed, 46% communicate daily, 44% communicate weekly, 7% communicate quarterly, and 2% communicate once a semester (Table 5). This amounts to 90% of teachers communicating on a weekly basis or more. Analysis: One of the goals of SLSD’s Educational Technology Plan (2011) is to “enhance effective school/ parent/community interaction and communication” (SLSD, p. 21).Teachers email parents to communicate about student progress, needs, and assignments to increase student achievement. In another survey question, 83% teachers indicated they use also Websites to communicate with parents (Table 4). When combining these two results, it appears that the majority of teachers communicate well. The results do not show if the 17% teachers who do not use Websites (Table 4) to communicate with parents choose instead to communicate by email. Recommendation: Continue to encourage teacher communications with parents by either Website or email. The district continues to provide tools to communicate with the community (SLSD, 2011, p. 21).
K. Students’ use of computers.
This question assessed the frequency of students’ use of computers. Of the 41 teachers who responded, 37% indicated their students used computers on a daily basis, 34% used them weekly, and remaining 29% used them less often (Table 5). Analysis: A goal of SLSD’s Educational Technology Report is to provide optimal access to technology tools to support student learning (2011 p. 10). On the other hand, about a third of students use it daily, a third weekly, and the remaining third less often. This shows that some students are not gaining equal access to technology to support learning and academic achievement. A lack of equal access may be attributed to not having a one-to-one environment. However, with a 2:1 ratio, all students have opportunities to use computers at least 2 to 3 times a week, but do not. Another reason for a lack of use may stem from 49% of teachers only being somewhat comfortable with new technology (Table 5) and therefore avoid using it with their students. Perhaps another reason is that teachers’ scheduling needs of computers conflict with other’s needs. Recommendation: Offer teachers PD to learn new and emerging technology as well as increase skill and ease in technology use. Continue to emphasize equal technology access to all students. Provide fair and equal scheduling of computer use for all students. Once the high school has implemented, a 1:1 environment, it will be informative to see if computer use increases.
II. Teachers Views about 1:1 Computer Environment
The next 10 questions and responses are organized into a table for ease of analysis. Since the survey utilized Likert type questions, a mean was calculated for each question by assigning each category a numerical value: 1 for strongly disagree, 2 for disagree, 3 for agree, and 4 for strongly agree. Then the category number was multiplied by the number (n) of teachers who choose that answer. Then add these values and divide by the total number of respondents (n = 41). The resultant answer is the mean.
Table 6.
Analysis: The majority of teacher responses showed that they strongly agree with the topics on implementation (Table 6). A strongly agree response can range from 3.00 to 4.00. Teachers strongly agreed with a 1:1 implementation to enhance student learning (M = 3.22), provide equal access to technology all the time (M = 3.39), less loss of work (M = 3.10), increase 21st Century Skills (m = 3.14), and more time to spend on homework and projects (3.10). Teachers in turn strongly agree that a 1:1 environment will increase their use of technology in the class (M = 3.02) and incorporate more quadrant – D lessons (M = 3.00). An agree response can range from 2.00 to 3.00. However, some teachers were not as convinced about student use when it came to less down time (M = 2.90), more productivity (m = 2.85), and more organization (m = 2.78). It would be informative to find out if there is a correlation between teachers’ current level of technology use and their responses on 1:1 implementation and (Loucks-Horsley, 1997). Recommendation: Provide PD for implementation and integration of technology; especially for teaching student productivity, organization, and efficiency time use.
Summary
The need for and use of technology tools should increase as students enter high school. This helps prepares them for future careers and continued education. Although teacher strongly support 1:1 implementation in most areas, yet there is room for improvement in content-rich teacher Websites, teacher training in using current technology, teacher analysis of data to improve teaching strategies, and student use of computers. As the district continues to move towards a 1:1 environment for optimal access to technology (SLSD, 2011, p.10), teachers and students can better utilize available technology.
Powerpoint Presentation of 9 - 12 Survey Results
Resources
Assessing Technology Use:
Technology Skills Checklist:
Collaborative Learning:
Teacher-to-Teacher Collaboration: This website provides an annotated list of teacher-to-teacher collaborative sites.
Maximizing the Impact of Teacher Collaboration: A practical, easy-to-read scholarly article on teacher collaboration.
Content Rich Websites:
Cyber Safety:
Equal Technology Use:
Implementation:
Observation Tools:
References
ALSDE (Alabama Department of Education). (2006). IMPACT Alabama Technology Plan for K – 12, 2007 – 2012. Retrieved from http://ti.alsde.edu/documents/access/IMPACT2007.pdf
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html
Federal Communications Commissions. (2011). FCC 11-125. Retrieved from
Ed.gov. (2004). Part D — Enhancing education through technology.Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html
ISTE. (2009). ISTE NETS-A. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS-A_Standards.sflb.ashx
Lenhart, A. (2101). Cyberbullying: What the research is the telling us. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/PewInternet/cyberbullying-2010-what-the-research-tells-us-4009451
Loucks-Horsley, S. (1997). Professional development for science education: A critical and immediate challenge. In R. Bybee (Ed.) National standards & the science curriculum. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. Retrieved from http://www.mdecgateway.org/olms/data/resource/3712/CBAM.pdf
OurIMPACT. (2003). Teacher technology survey for evaluating technology integration benchmarks. Retrieved from http://www.ourimpact.com/msteachers.htm
OurIMPACT (2004). Technology integration report: Sample school system. Retrieved from http://www.ourimpact.com/images/Sample%20Report%20v2.pdf
P21. (2011). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/overview/skills-framework
Tech & Learning. (2010). Study shows the benefits of 1:1 and the factors that enhance success.Retrieved from http://www.k12blueprint.com/k12/blueprint/story_study_shows_benefits_of_1_1.php
Shelby County Schools. (2012). Technology survey use and integration. Retrieved from http://www.decadeconsulting.com/decade/scss/integrationsample.htm
Southern Lehigh School District (SLSD). (2011). Educational technology Report. Retrieved from http://www.slsd.org/files/filesystem/Ed%20Tech%20Plan.pdf